From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com, peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block |
Date: | 2000-03-07 16:47:15 |
Message-ID: | 20410.952447635@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> BTW, we are not *that* far from being able to roll back a DROP TABLE.
>> The only thing that's really needed is for everyone to take a deep
>> breath and let go of the notion that table files ought to be named
>> after the tables. If we named table files after the OIDs of their
>> tables, then rollback-able DROP or RENAME TABLE would be pretty
>> straightforward. If you don't recall why this is, consult the
>> pghackers archives...
> So what was the conclusion for 7.0?
Too late to consider it for 7.0, I think. I'd like to see it happen in
7.1 or 7.2 or so.
>> Disallow DROP TABLE/DROP INDEX inside a transaction block
> We should remove above from HISTORY, no?
Yes, it's not correct.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-03-07 16:57:45 | Re: [HACKERS] library policy question |
Previous Message | Patrick Welche | 2000-03-07 16:40:31 | Re: [HACKERS] alter_table.sql |